The FCA has issued a statement 'setting the record straight' after it received criticism over plans to delete emails held in staff inboxes after a year.
Ian Phoenix, director of intelligence and digital at the FCA, says it wants to modernise how it manages its records to "make us a more efficient and effective regulator".
He said: "We're not deleting evidence. We’re not hiding information. We’re not reducing transparency. There is no change to our policy of what constitutes a record and how long it should be saved for."
Instead, Phoenix explained that, although emails will still be deleted from inboxes after a year, staff will "assess whether the contents of an email are a record and – if they are – save them to the central shared drive" so they can still be accessed if the FCA needs to find the information in response to a request.
Phoenix added that the changes will help the regulator comply with GDPR and data protection obligations.
He continued: "Email is one of our biggest sources of information – but our inboxes can also accumulate lots of non-essential items. We currently have over 70 million emails stored in FCA inboxes. Searching through this volume of emails is like trying to find a specific grain of sand on a beach. Yes, AI tools can help with tasks like this, but we believe it's still to everyone’s advantage to further embed best practice record management.
"Moving information to where it can be better managed, searched and retrieved will make it far easier and quicker to locate historical information when we need it. Instead of spending hours digging through personal inboxes, staff will be able to search by keyword in a central digital archive. This means faster information retrieval, and ultimately, more effective regulation."
Phoenix stressed that the FCA has built in safeguards and will put in a range of support for staff, with select team members having access to deleted emails for an extended period.
James Alleyne, legal director in the financial services regulatory team at Kingsley Napley LLP, commented: “Given this has come so hot on the heels of its botched “name and shame” consultation, the FCA had little choice but to quickly address public concerns around its approach to, and understanding of, transparency.
"The market needed this important clarity on the FCA's intentions, given the glaring inconsistency of what they expected from those firms they monitor with the misinterpretation that snowballed about their new data approach.
"Perhaps this was a PR rather than a policy fail after all."
